The Catholic Diocese of Little Rock has petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court to hear its support for upholding the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Diocese Bishop Anthony Taylor submitted a request Thursday that the state's highest court accept an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" brief, that argues same-sex marriage bans are valid laws enacted by the people and that their elimination undermines an institution that is the bedrock of any society.
The diocese's brief comes more than four months after a challenge of state law by same-sex couples resulted in Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's decision to strike a state law and a voter-approved constitutional amendment that reserved marriage as a right exclusively shared between a man and a woman.
That ruling, which prompted several hundred same-sex marriage licenses to be issued, was suspended by the Supreme Court on May 17 until arguments could be brought before the justices.
Thursday's brief echoed arguments made by the attorney general's office, which said Piazza erred in ruling the laws unconstitutional and, as a result, demeaned the democratic process that put them into effect years ago.
"The issue of how marriage should be defined ... is one one that prompts strong emotions," Taylor said. "However, 'Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.' ... There is no authority in the [U.S. or Arkansas constitutions] that authorizes the judiciary to overturn the definition of marriage that has been adopted by [the Legislature] and Arkansas voters."
The diocese stressed that its position against gay marriage does not reflect an "animus" toward same-sex couples.
The brief states that the state has an interest in preserving marriage as a basis of procreation.
"If marriage is solely about the kind and quality of love that two persons share and the legal rights and responsibilities they desire to undertake ... taken to its logical conclusion, then states must allow couples such as mother and a daughter, sister and sister, or brother and brother to marry," the brief states. "[If] marriage becomes no more than a business arrangement, very few restraints on marriage will survive a constitutional challenge."
Arguments like those made in Thursday's brief were rebutted last week by Pulaski County Clerk Larry Crane, who, despite being an appellant in the case, filed a brief supporting Piazza's ruling and argued that moral arguments against gay couples' rights to marriage are discriminatory.
"[The gay-marriage ban] targets a minority to strip them of rights," Crane wrote. "It does so for no other reason ... than to protect the majority from unfounded and irrational fears or to impose a majoritarian morality."
An attorney representing the same-sex couples in the suit, Cheryl Maples, said she has no objections to the diocese's involvement in the case but thinks its position is a bit off topic.
"We're not asking for Holy Matrimony," Maples said. "We're asking for civil marriages."
Court officials said the justices will evaluate whether to consider the diocese's brief. That decision could be reached by next week. Briefs from the parties are due Oct. 15.
Metro on 09/26/2014